112 comments:

One thing I sad about this blog is the fascination with Palin. She quit. She has NO innovation in policy making world. None. She speaks like a whiner. America is not about whiners. Forget her.

Jindal made a serious error supporting Perry. With Rick/Newt running for the nomination, he will not be in 2016. Why? The GOP will lose. Newt will be the king-maker. He does not like Bobby. End of Story.

The GOP is the Party of the Dead. They do not know that yet. With Obama-Biden making the All-USA victory in Nov. 2012, there will be nothing about the GOP will interest rank-and-fine, press, and independents. They lose 2012, and they will be handicapped for 2016, too. They just do not know yet.

This election was IN THE BAG. They killed Romney. Now, they will reap what they planted...

You make the person pushing the political narrative of the nation sound like a wind up toy, Meadhouse. When she speaks and what she writes on Facebook set the standard for the issues and how the RINO's and CINO's address the people. The woman is passionate, full of conviction, is not a flip flopping weathervane a la Romney the "severely conservative" and has policy prescriptions that would restore this nation.

Words mean things and your header for this post was intentionally belittling when you consider denotations and entailments.

I can't help wondering if, like Ann Coulter, you're one of these women who don't want a strong and decisive woman on the scene. Passing up Palin for Obama? That's caviar for frogs' eggs.

Palin's performance exemplifies--spotlights--the reason the left pursued the full-court press tactics of personal destruction in a very successful attempt to make her seem an ill-educated ignoramus despite the fact she was college educated and had more genuine executive experience than any of the other three candidates running for Pres & V. P. combined. Palin presented a mortal danger to a "pro-choice" Democrat party dependent on the woman's vote as an intelligent, pro-life, conservative woman who had demonstrated executive and political success in the same way the demonstration effect of a different mercantilist economic and political system represented by Carthage was a mortal threat to Imperial Rome. As such she HAD to be destroyed in the public mind as a plausible alternative and qualified candidate for higher office.

Did watch Jindal though. I've always been a fan. Maybe HHS secretary in a Romney admin.

from Wikipedia:In 1993 U.S. Representative Jim McCrery (whom Jindal had worked for as a summer intern) introduced him to Governor Mike Foster. [8] In 1996 Foster appointed Jindal as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, an agency that represented about 40 percent of the state budget and employed over 12,000 people. Jindal was the youngest ever Secretary of the DHH at 25. [9] During his tenure, Louisiana's Medicaid program went from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million. [10] Jindal was criticized during the 2007 campaign by the Louisiana AFL-CIO for closing some local clinics to reach that surplus. [11] Under Jindal's term, Louisiana nationally rose to third place in child healthcare screenings, with child immunizations rising, and introduced new and expanded services for the elderly and the disabled. [12] In 1998, Jindal was appointed executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a 17-member panel charged with devising plans to reform Medicare.

virgil xeniphon: "a very successful attempt to make her seem an ill-educated ignoramus"

It was successful because the American people watched her get exposed in interviews as not knowing much of anything while running for VP. It's not the media's fault that the GOP ran an ignorant person for high office.

I have no interest in spending an hour of my Sunday morning watching a Palin speech. I have no doubt she got a lively reception from her CPAC worshippers, but she's pretty irrelevant these days beyond that crowd. That's not the lamestream media's fault. She was given every opportunity.

She lost in a general election and quit her position as governor. She makes a ton of money doing something other than being a candidate. She will never be a candidate.

She is far from the one pushing any real narrative anywhere except on her television shows. She should spend her time attacking Obama from Facebook and not attempt to foul up the GOP with a brokered convention.

To anybody here who hasn't been here a couple years: America's Politico was spectacularly and comically wrong about the 2010 elections. It's all here in the Althouse archives. He/she has never gotten over that.

That woman is the real deal. Nobody can inspire the base like she does. And nobody has drawn out the sick, psychotic, and flat out evil dark side of the American political psyche like she has. That alone is proof that she is the greatest threat to the liberal-socialist-totalitarian disease that is rotting America from the inside out.

Sarah Palin. I remember that name from awhile back. One-hit wonder, but she still plays the club circuit to a hardcore fan base, from what I understand. That's one of the great things about fame. You can make a decent living off of it for a long time in a big, rich country like ours, as long as you don't lose your core fan base. On a similar note, did you hear that Cinderella is back on tour?

But she turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout.

Do you have some links to polls showing that, or is this sort of like your claims that Andy Warhol was a weatherman in Indianapolis before hitting it big as an artist? And while you're at it, can you give us the names of states that McCain carried that he wouldn't have had carried without Palin? After all, in our electoral system, winning Electoral College votes is how you win the Presidency. Thanks in advance for the information.

It probably says something about Romney's problems that we can't distinguish his backers from Ann's house progs.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that Palin is an inconsequential loser, none of you can wait to scurry in and repeat your tied lies.

Yes, Sarah Palin resigned, after fine progressives like those here and those in the faculty lounge Ann is comfortable sipping tea with launched thirty -- 30! -- separate lawsuits against her, every one of which was thrown out but every one of which she had to defend with her own money.

So yes, she quit, but she ain't a patch on Gingrich, who quit on two wives and a Congressional district, or Romney, who quit on every promise he made to Massachusetts conservatives to get elected, and is promising to quit now on ever promise he's made to liberals since.

She's no "one-hit wonder." To those not paying attention, from the getgo she and her family has been utterly taken apart and decimated by (1) the lamestream media, (2) libtards generally, and, most appallingly, by (3) RINO Republicans and erstwhile "conservatives." Who she is and what she represents is that threatening.

But, happily, she's only 47, and F Scott Fitzgerald was wrong, there are indeed second acts in American life. The future is hers.

America's Politico is wrong now. Romney can make a single defensible attack on Obama based on his own record and the GOP voters are waking up to that. Plus, the Meg Whitman attack campaign he is running with now is biting him in the ass.

I agree that the democrats and their liberal friends saw Palin as a huge threat and went on an effort to destroy here. I also am predisposed to like Palin.

But after listening to her on Fox for the past year or so, I have been very disappointed. She seems incapable of expressing intelligent, analytical thought. She can express some sound bites and some vague general principles pretty well. But she says virtually nothing that reflects any serious thought and she engages in no back and forth commentary that reflects any serious thought about important issues. Four years ago, I thought Palin would someday be president and I was fine with that. Today, regretfully, I don't think she is qualified for any significant office.

"The crowd went wild for the former Alaska governor and Republican pick for Vice President in 2008, who drew so many attendees to her speech that organizers added multiple overflow rooms." HuffPo

"But no one drew a more excited response than Ms. Palin. More than two hours before her speech, people formed a long line to enter the hall, and the organizers had to arrange for overflow rooms with video." NYT

"At any rate, Palin’s unrivaled ability to rally a crowd was definitely on display; she drew more standing ovations than at least one gal could count. It was red meat to the base — a reiteration that conservatives stand on the shoulders of the Founders, that we have solutions to the fiscal problems that face our nation" HotAir

The price of gas is double what it was when O was elected and expected to spike $.60 by May.

This little nugget of news cannot be stated enough. Any type of economic "progress" that Obama can claim will be wiped out in a heartbeat if gas is over $4 come Memorial Day, just in time for the summer traveling season.

I long for the good old days when that nasty "oil man" George Bush "pushed" gas to around $2 a gallon to give the oil companies their "payoff".

Ron Paul is saying that insiders, within Maine's GOP, pulled off his winning votes. They've gone UN-REPORTED. And, one district couldn't vote ... because there was a "dusting" of snow. (While, in that district, the GIRL SCOUTS held a big group meeting.)

FRAUD has a way of biting your primary candidates in the ass.

This doesn't cost Obama a dime.

And, ya know what? I heard from one man who calls the President O'Bummer ... that he's given up on seeing a republican win the White House this year.

Most of you, here, don't even see the storm clouds. But if Obama wins in 2012, he gets to make 4-more-years-of Supreme Court appointments.

And, Michelle? She's being groomed to run, following 8-years-as-First Lady ... To be the 2016 Presidential candidate. What have you got? You'll run Romney, again? Or Jeb Bush?

At least Custer's Last Stand was definitive.

No. I am not endorsing Obama. But it looks more than likely that Obama will win more votes than any GOP candidate. (An Independent? Well, Teddy Roosevelt, as a Bull Moose came in 2nd. Taft came in 3rd. And, the democraps have owned the Federal branches of government following Wilson's victory. This, too, is not an endorsement. Sits out there as observable fact.

Well, if you remember Fox News saying it on air, it must have happened. In any case, this is the sort of thing that's easily quantifiable if it happened, given current polling capabilities (it's not like I'm asking for breakdowns regarding Grover Cleveland's election numbers). So you should be able to come up with support for your assertion of a fact.

And, as for Warhol, Wynn Moore, a talk radio host in Philadelphia who actually worked with Warhol when Warhol was young, said that and, as far as I can tell, had no reason to lie.

Well, if Wynn Moore said it, it must be true. I mean, talk radio hosts in Philadelphia never get their facts wrong. But here too, it wouldn't be hard to find proof of the statement, given that Warhol's life history was (perhaps overly) documented.

BTW some phony folksy is the moron who thanked Barack Obama for the state of the markets about a year ago. A market that has bounded up and down on every rumor that's come along.

Such is the nature of a volatile market. And those of us who are invested in it definitely have had heartburn on some days. But if you were an investor in the latter part of 2008 or early 2009 and didn't lose your nerve and sell, you're probably a lot better off today than you were then.

PS some phony folksy never documents anything. He just drops his snark and runs.

Whatever you say. I certainly back up assertions of fact more often and accurately than you do. But anyway, my questions still stand. Perhaps you can come up with something better than your remembrances of TV and radio commentary for support of your assertions.

I remember quite clearly that McCain was losing in the polls to BO until he chose Palin. After that he went ahead and stayed there until the financial meltdown that cinched the election for the Dems.

Maybe so. Polls fluctuate and I also remember a post-Palin announcement bump for McCain. So that's a fair comment. But the assertion was that Palin "turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout". That would imply that on Election Day, Palin was the main reason a lot of people (namely undecideds) voted for McCain rather than Obama. That's something that can presumably be (and was) polled for and proven and our friend edutcher (who has a somewhat tenuous relationship with facts and proof) hasn't come up with any data to support this factual (not opinion) claim. This isn't a question of whether one likes Palin or not. It's a factual claim about whether she did or didn't bring votes for the McCain campaign in 2008, particularly among undecided voters. It's not the sort of thing one must rely on one's remembrances of TV commentary to analyze.

Hey, congratulations for actually showing some links to support your assertions, edutcher! That's not something you see every day. Unfortunately for you, they aren't links to things I was asking about. Obviously, things aren't hunky-dory in the economy today. That's why it's amazing for many of us to see many Republicans actually consider someone other than Mitt Romney, who actually can talk credibly about economic issues, as the standard-bearer for their party.

In any case, you still haven't come up with support for what you asserted and I asked about to begin with. But nice use of an internet cliche (Mom's basement? Really? That's all you have?) as part of your commentary.

If there’s anything that would cause me to remember Palin it’s some Palin-hater demanding that I forget her.

It was successful because the American people watched her get exposed in interviews as not knowing much of anything while running for VP.

It was successful because the American people watched her being asked gotcha questions they would never ask a Democrat candidate and that those asking the question didn’t know the answers themselves. Example: The Bush Doctrine as defined by the man who coined the term:

http://tinyurl.com/7wwbj4j

She lost in a general election and quit her position as governor.

She was the only bright spot in a flawed GOP campaign and was hounded out of office by Progressive-directed lawsuits.

She makes a ton of money doing something other than being a candidate.

Palin is able to make a good living for her family, just as most other folks in this world would like to do. But the Palin-haters always offer this fact as a negative.

She will never be a candidate.

Maybe she will or maybe she won’t but the commentor doesn’t have a clue either way.

I'll add one thing. In her last couple of interviews on Fox and in that video, she hasn't look well.

I saw her on Fox News Sunday this morning. As pretty as ever. Looking as healthy as an athlete. The above comment is wishful thinking.

Sarah Palin. I remember that name from awhile back.

With Palin the Left amusingly alternates between imploring us to “forget her” and ‘Palin who?’

Four years ago, I thought Palin would someday be president and I was fine with that. Today, regretfully, I don't think she is qualified for any significant office.

America Politico, if Romney suffered any mortal wound, it was self-inflicted. People have been dying to fall for Romney. It's his fault that he hasn't sewn up the nomination yet. It's completely on him.

And if you think Newt is any kind of GOP kingmaker, you've been smoking more crack than Whitney Houston (too soon; sorry). Who do you think took Newt down when his poll numbers went up? Every establishment Republican and house organ in the book, that's who.

edutcher said...According to PJMedia, she really knocked it out of the park, getting in some good ones on GodZero. Which, of course, is why all the trolls are out.

I realize the Althouse comment sections have become so right-wing that barely anyone else can stand to look at them, but I hope it hasn't gotten so bad that anyone who isn't a hardcore conservative is regarded as a "troll".

I only came by this blog this weekend because I was looking at what was being said about Whitney Houston's death. I had no idea a CPAC event was taking place. I had no idea Palin gave a speech until I saw Althouse posting it. It's amusing you think people were so freaked out by Palin supposedly "knocking it out of the park" that bat signals went out across the internet to her haters.

virgil xeniphon: "a very successful attempt to make her seem an ill-educated ignoramus"

It was successful because the American people watched her get exposed in interviews as not knowing much of anything while running for VP. It's not the media's fault that the GOP ran an ignorant person for high office.

No, it only worked with those who don't like to think and just take the Lefty media at face value.

Says the person who started his post with "According to PJMedia...." That's Pajamas Media, right? The failed site started by partisan propaganda bloggers?

Too bad they didn't do the same with the guy who thinks Hawaii is part of Asia.

When Obama makes small gaffes when he's tired people outside the hardcore partisan circles don't make much of it because they can see for themselves that it doesn't indicate anything more than that he simply misspoke. With Palin, people were left feeling the GOP was putting forth a candidate for high office who was ignorant to a frightening and disturbing degree.

Even in this very thread there's a commenter named Kansas City who says he was predisposed to like Palin but ended up finding her "incapable of expressing intelligent, analytical thought".

But I know there's a cult of personality thing going on with some of you right-wingers when i comes to Palin.

Add to that list the daily consumption of gasoline is down 47% from 2003 levels. Unemployed people don't drive as much. There is no way to spin this fact. No amount of internet shopping, telecommuting or putative fuel efficiency improvements can account for such a drop.

No, LoafingOaf (and the other detractors of Ms. Palin on these threads), we're not part of some cult of personality here.

We, however, find it quite refreshing that a public figure who aspires to leadership shows - in word and in practice - that they don't swallow the camels of fundamental falsehood whole while straining at every gnat of "nuance" and/or politics-as-usual.

Y'all want a leader (like Obama, or Romney) that fits the conventional-wisdom-driven caricature of "leadership" ... and ignore anyone who doesn't fit that caricature, regardless of the principles they adhere to, and how strongly they adhere to them.

We no longer have the "slack" in our economy or society for our leaders to continue to fiddle with politics-as-usual and elitist preening.

We need leaders that cut to the heart of the matters that face us -- even if that means cutting the power and prestige of popular-culture figures and party professionals down a notch or two -- even if that means telling us that we have to take back responsibility for our own futures, instead of "outsourcing" that to Washington DC.

(As for her quitting ... can you say "strategic retreat" by someone with patience and wisdom.)

IF the GOP picks a candidate ahead ... that can't unite people behind such a candidate ... And, their candidate loses ... You get 4-more-years of Obama.

Then?

Would you learn that name-calling doesn't win ya a majority of voters?

Could you see that waving those dead fetus posters around ... don't bring in lots of people ... who have more of a dislike for the GOP than they do of democrats?

NO! This is not an endorsement.

But, HELLO, I'd be very surprised if, for the past year and a half, the GOP "out-reached" beyond its base.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove is trying to spark interest in Jeb Bush.

Maybe, the real question is "BY how many points" can the GOP candidate lose by?

We know the spread for McCain/Obama. McCain (the war hero who got caputred) ... got 47% of the vote.

And, if I didn't hear Chris Rock's routine ... I would never have known that back in 2008 ... Chris Rock said "He'd have preferred if the GOP had run a candidate that didn't get captured. But had run away.)

Maybe so. Polls fluctuate and I also remember a post-Palin announcement bump for McCain. So that's a fair comment. But the assertion was that Palin "turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout".

Here's my recollection of the McCain campaign. In the weeks before he chose Palin he had run a series of ads attacking Obama's lack of experience and cult of personality.

Remember the ad painting him as a celebrity like Paris Hilton? "He's the biggest celebrity in the world but is he ready to LEAD?" And the ad making fun of the idea that Obama is "the One", some sort of "messiah"?

I thought those ads were pretty effective in raising doubts among swing voters (I have no idea if the polls would back me up on that).

But then the McCain campaign decided they needed to find their own "rock star" for the ticket and they introduced us to Palin. Palin delivered a good speech to kick things off, and it did give McCain a spark. Until people realized there was nothing else there with Palin and she didn't seem to know very much about anything.

The McCain campaign that had been attacking Obama's lack of experience and celebrity was suddenly telling me that this ignorant woman should be second in line under an elderly president. It undercut McCain's ability to attack Obama's biggest weakness.

It also undercut one of McCain's strengths in courting swing voters: That he's a Republican centrists could feel comfortable with. I felt he was playing recklessly with our lives and the fate of the country in order to energize his party's base. It was clear he didn't even know much about Palin before he chose her.

edutcher sputters:And some phony folksy, miserable liar that he is, still has yet to document ANYTHING he has ever said.

Funny, I'm not the one making factual assertions on this thread about voting behavior, etc. You are familiar with the difference between factual assertions and assertions of opinion, right edutcher? Or am I giving you too much credit?

Actually, that's not quite true. I said that Cinderella is on tour (which will RAWK, I'm sure) and I provided a link to prove that. Anyway, keep on keeping on there.

LOL. I thought Scott Walker's mortal failing was that he didn't have a college degree. Now you're saying that Feingold "teaching at the law shcool Scott Walker flunket out of." But don't you need a college degree to attend law school? Or is this more proof that Walker is some kind of genius?

There's a very good link up right now at LegalInsurrection about Obama's dismantling of the fossil fuel industry. These are the sorts of things we should be talking about. This is the sort of thing Palin wants to talk about-energy.

I find it amusing when Obama tells us all about "Navy Corpse-man", when he tells he has visited all "56 states" (or was it "57"?), and when he informs us that "Austrian" is the language spoken in Austria, his merry band of cool-aid drinkers tell us he was "just tired" and "misspoke".

Meanwhile, when Palin quotes C.S. Lewis or the Federalist Papers, these very same folks tell us she's a numskull.

Obama ("We are the ones we have been waiting for") is in fact nothing but a real life Chauncey Gardiner.

Do you know it hasn't been a year since Japan got the double-whammy, of a tsunami and earthquake? And, do you know Japan has CLEANED UP ... that there are pictures showing you what happens when people get involved in cleaning up their cities.

New Orleans? Bobby Jindal, and all those lazy New Orleans assholes, are waiting for the government to "clean up their banks overflowing the levees.

Go ahead. Make believe you have no problems with GOP "leadership skills."

I haven't changed the subject, edutcher. In fact, let's go back to your original comment:

But she turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout.

Despite multiple requests for you to prove this assertion of fact (this is not an assertion of opinion, like "Sarah Palin is an inspiring leader to me"), you haven't been able to come up with any support for this statement.

This is Logic 101. The burden of proof is upon he who asserts the positive. I need not disprove your statement any more than I need to disprove comments by people who claim that there was a secret manned Russian moon landing. And the fact that there was a bump in the polls for McCain at one point (as others have pointed out) doesn't help because that doesn't prove anything about how things went on Election Day. For example, Michael Dukakis had a lead over George Bush at one point in the 1988 Presidential race. But that didn't matter on Election Day and his candidacy isn't seen as a success.

I can see why you're upset, in that you've made a statement about a topic that's very important to you that you can't prove and have been caught out on it. And it's a statement that can be proven if true, unlike bare statements of opinion. Anyway, please provide such support if you have it. I'm genuinely interested in seeing it, as I find electoral politics to be quite fascinating.

Up ahead? I'm probably not going to vote for Obama. I didn't vote for him in 2008. I didn't vote for McCain, either. The California ballot came with ten presidential choices. Some were funnier than others. And, I picked one from this menu of choices.

Let me also help you out on the laws currently on the books FOR contraception. Wouldn't touch a republican candidate, now, with a ten foot pole.

Yes. I'm 72. If I got pregnant? I tell Gabriel to scrape it off the wall! And, I like that Roe V. Wade is the law.

I'm sorta wishy-washy on Palin. Her speech had some good lines ("WTF") but seemed disorganized and disjointed to me. Is she trading too much on being the anointed queen of the Tea Party? To be fair, though, Palin was the "Keynote Speraker" and had to try to hit some themes requiring abstraction as well as to nail Obama.

Jindal, on the other hand, was excellent. Astute, great sense of humor and forceful. I also thought Walker did an outstanding job. But they got to do some "show and tell."

"When Obama makes small gaffes when he's tired people outside the hardcore partisan circles don't make much of it because they can see for themselves that it doesn't indicate anything more than that he simply misspoke."

This is true enough. No one really thinks that he thought there were 57 states. OTOH, no one actually thinks that Biden is only having a slip of the tongue when he "misspeaks", but he gets a pass. Hell, at this point he might be dead and no one told us.

Biden holds the post that Palin was running for.

"With Palin, people were left feeling the GOP was putting forth a candidate for high office who was ignorant to a frightening and disturbing degree."

No.

With Palin people indulged and were encouraged in believing a stereotype. Bigotry on that side, attributed to a pretty woman with an odd accent that the right would never attribute to a black man.

Palin was misrepresented at every turn, her education and her accent proof of being dumb... dumb being the worst possible thing... unless it's Biden. A woman from a blue collar, union background who ruled as governor that employees of the state with a same sex partner receive the same benefits as married heterosexuals...

The beliefs of bigots were more palatable than considered truth when it came to Palin. They believed what they believed because of their prejudice.

I'll type this slowly. Please provide proof for the statement: But she turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout.

The "she" being referred to here is Sarah Palin. The question does not turn on whether a comment was made to that effect on Fox News, MSNBC or CNN, or whether a video of said comment is available. I'll even spot you and agree that such a comment was made on Fox News. That doesn't mean it is true, even newscasters make mistakes.

It is, however, an independent fact that can be proven if true and doesn't have to rely on the recollections of TV viewers or the accuracy of anchormen. It is the sort of fact that one can glean from polling data, the sort of data that is widely available on the internet, particularly for the 2008 election. Also, it is a fact that is relational. Namely, saying that Palin brought out more GOP voters (if that is the case) doesn't help if she also brought out more Obama voters. It's a question of how this played into percentages ("stopped a double-digit blowout"), not raw numbers. Also, I'm not making a claim one way or another on this point (though I have my suspicions about the underlying facts), but I am asking for some proof. Like something from Rasmussen on this issue, for example. I hope I've made my request clear enough.

Anyway, this horse has been beat into a fine paste. If you can come up with some proof for your contention, great. If not, well, there you go.

===========I did catch 5 minutes of Jindal. He WAS good and is probably capable of dispelling the perception many have from his failed "star-making opportunity" as the one who Republicans selected to rebut Obama's SOTU Address - and who came off excruciatingly dull and boring. He's better than that.

Agree with Phil that Jindal, if Romney is fortunate enough to be elected President, should be the guy Romney selects to not just head HHS but have Czar powers to oversee other Fed Agencies outside HHS that deal with healthcare entitlements - it will be challanging, ugly and unpopular at times work that has to get done to avert either America's next fiscal collapse or our taxes rising to the 40-45% level to fund healthcare costs.

I would also consider a Romney Administration a chance for Sarah Palin to rehab herself. From her public perception as a charismatic Jesse-Jackson like figure that is a God/Goddess to an extreme part of the Party base....but who has no brains and speaks in disjointed talking point gibberish that the Base "gets" - but few outside the Base see.Talk to Palin and her scriptwriters. Nominate her for something that will drive the liberals crazy - Head of Energy Dept that will come in to dismantle it. Or head of the EPA with a mission to downsize it of both regulations that cripple American competitiveness and staff that see themselves on a mission for the Greens to save Mother Gaia. Romney will benefit 3 ways:

1. Appease the Palin freaks.2. The confirmation process would be a liberal firestorm, allowing other nominees to get in easier.3. Palin succeeds, she rehabilitates herself as something other than a joke to Americans outside the right wing true believers. She fails, or worse abruptly quits another job - she clears the path for other Republican women to seek national office now "blocked" by all the attention on Palin.

Still weak, edutcher, even for you. I'm not suggesting you sit through hours of old Fox News footage, merely that you provide some proof for your statement. Presumably the Fox News newscaster you were watching had some support for that comment (like some polling numbers from Rasmussen or some other reputable pollster whose data is readily available online) and you could come up with that. If of course, the comment took place (and as stated, I'm willing to assume it did) and was accurate (which I'm not going to assume is the case - that's what independent evidence is for). Once again, the burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. You made the claim, you should be able to back it up.

But in any case, the ball is still in your court, as it has been from the beginning. Maybe you can stop flailing about and actually hit it back over the net. And to mix the metaphors, I think the horse has now been reduced to a liquid state.

As we all know, the margin on Election Day was 53 - 47. Since the big dynamo on the side of the good guys was Miss Sarah and the Establishment Media was covering for Zero, we can all make our conclusions.

Well, polling data is pretty much the only sort of evidence that would be relevant to this topic. It's not large of me to accept it and it is what I asked for from the beginning. But maybe I wasn't clear enough on that and it became clear when I typed the request slowly.

we have Rasmussen putting Zero ahead of Maverick by about 8 and Gallup putting the SCOAMF up by 11 at the beginning of October. As we all know, the margin on Election Day was 53 - 47. Since the big dynamo on the side of the good guys was Miss Sarah and the Establishment Media was covering for Zero, we can all make our conclusions.

Yes, we can make our conclusions. Namely that you haven't proven your point. Have you provided polling in which voters stated that they voted for McCain because of Palin (which is the sort of question that pollsters can and do ask)? No. Have you shown that such voters moved the needle from a double-digit loss to a six-point loss? No, in part because you would need to provide evidence regarding the first question.

All you've shown is that McCain may have narrowed the margin by a couple of points over the course of October. That isn't proof of your statement, though it is statistically interesting. Perhaps it is evidence that McCain did well in the debates. Or evidence that McCain's October ad buys were effective. In any case, it isn't proof of your contention about Palin saving McCain from a double-digit loss. Let me give you a little help - perhaps you should see if there were exit polls that asked about this question and if so, what they said.

The horse is approaching gaseous state now. And I notice that no one else seems to be jumping in to back you up here, edutcher. One might draw conclusions from that, too.

I thought Palin did a great job in the speech of outlining a common conservative vision that many can agree with.

The contrast between that vision and the leftist vision of European socialism is striking. As my friend said "Europe is tired, and dying." Maybe someday the European people will realize giving up freedom for security comes to an end, as no one is really on your side. It is amazing how the greed of today's people extends to selling out our kids and grandkids to the ownership class. But I suppose if you have someone like Obama telling you it is OK, it makes it all right.

I'd suggest that in the Somefeller-Edutcher dispute about Palin's being an asset or a detraction to the ticket - that they go with what the pollsters said as election post-mortem. (Mind you I thought selecting Palin instead of Romney, Huckabee or 4 or 5 others of that level was a mistake. And I also said McCain was a horrific candidate.)

1. McCain had serious health issues with cancer that had spread to his lymph nodes and had a 30% chance of recurrence with systemic and lethal spread to other organs. So his VP pick was in more likelihood, statistically, than most elections. And Palin was seen by the public overall by election day as not up to the job.

2. Palin "energized the Base". OK, but were there not other possible VP candidates of higher potential? Besides, the Religious Right and Base already hated Obama and were already engerized to keep the Secret Muslim Commie Black Guy out of the White House.

3. The most damaging thing about Palin, pollsters agreed, was that she immediately took away McCain's most important argument - that 3 AM phone call, where Obama lacked the seasoning and experience and executive ability to be President. McCain was immediately forced to defend his selectee Palin as fit and ready to be President - and concede if she was - then Obama also was. McCains argument to be President, thanks to Palin was to say while Obama had the quals to be President like Palin....the argument henceforth was only that Obama had the wrong policies.

4. Exit polls showed a swing of moderates and independents, particularly women, to Obama, was in part based on their thinking Palin was unfit..dumb.When pollsters and election technical analysts crunched their post election data - they concluded Palin directly cost McCain more votes with women, moderates, independents than SHE GAINED by "motivating right-wingers to vote.

Your refighting the 2008 election is always entertaining though misguided. It's as fun as watching Sullivan try to walk back his Palin bigotry--can't be done. All that's needed is a mea culpa or some other contrition or acknowledgement of having gone overboard. Like that's gonna happen.

Some phony folksy challenged my assertion of a Fox News story that averred Sarah Palin brought all the undecideds to McCain, cutting a double digit rout to six points.

Since I don't tape every second of Fox News, I don't have the video.

He says it didn't happen. I was there and I say it did and, no, I haven't got the time to Google from now till Hell freezes to find it. And he obviously is afraid to go through Fox archives in the fear I might be right.

But I'll keep looking, because when, not if, I do find it, I will shove it up his nose.

I ♥ Willard said...

Here is a link to a very informative paper that attempts to quantify the Palin effect.

Some phony folksy challenged my assertion of a Fox News story that averred Sarah Palin brought all the undecideds to McCain, cutting a double digit rout to six points. Since I don't tape every second of Fox News, I don't have the video. He says it didn't happen.

Apparently, reading comprehension is another thing that isn't your forte. That's a problem for someone trying to do a recap. I didn't claim that the Fox News broadcast didn't happen. While your memory isn't something I'd swear by, I stated quite clearly that I'd be willing to assume that it did happen. But that doesn't mean anything regarding the underlying fact in question, which was your statement that Palin turned the undecideds to McCain in the election and stopped a double-digit blowout. You still haven't proven that.

Feel free to find a video of the Fox News broadcast. That's not what I was asking for, as stated above. Maybe while you're at it you can post a video of that odd guy on the History Channel who talks about aliens visiting the earth and building the Pyramids. What I was asking for was data (like exit polls) that support your statement regarding a rather recent bit of electoral history. You still haven't come up with that and others here have come up with evidence of the contrary, even though they really aren't obligated to do so. Keep on keeping on! Maybe we can turn the horse into a plasma plume!

Chickenlittle - It is not refighting 2008, it is challenging the notion that Sarah Palin is still a viable force in 2012.

Those who argue she is - point to her dubious "help to McCain" in 2008 as a reason to continue to embrace The Wisdom of Sarah.

Cults of personality have long duration.Jesse Jackson still gets standing ovations in audiences of Democrat purists. Caroline Kennedy does as well as Totem to the Godlike Brothers 3 the Dems worship after 50 years.Need to "fire Up!! The Democrat Base? Just have Princess Caroline show. She is a defacto Goddess of their Base, like Palin is with the Fundie Yahoos. In Russia, the WWII Red Army Vets are dying in droves over the last 20 years since the USSR fell. Many wish to be buried with a picture of their family and Conrade Stalin clasped in their dead hands.

Honestly, it's like the 3 1/2 years never happened over here, the mediaedited huge parts of the condescending interviews that Gibson and Couric did, the last was due to perky Katie's failure to do basic research. Palin, described maybe Cassandra like what we would facewith an Obama presidency, and haschosen not to push the point too much. The things that Obama has been successful at, are mostly those which he condemned as a candidate,'air raiding villages'in the cases of Abbotabad andShabwa, Those thihgs he promotedon his own, the stimulus, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, have beenmiserable failures,

I wonder if this is the transcript of the Fox News segment that edutcher keeps yammering about. If so, edutcher is seriously mistaken in his interpretation of what is being said.

The more interesting observation is that Bill Kristol clearly misunderstands the implications of the exit poll numbers he cites. Of course Bill Kristol has a significant track record of being wrong about practically everything, so I suppose it's not really news to discover that he's made another blunder.

And, it's the conservatives who have shrunk the GOP label to mean PROHIBITION!

When I was taught about Lincoln, I was taught that he didn't want to be "socked with the abolitionist's label." For the life of me, I did not understand why. Being against slavery seemed to me to be a no-brainer.

But back in 1860 being an abolitionist, was DEATH in the political arena. Lincoln was able to strike the balance that got him into office. At a time this country was roiling in the SOUTHERN hatreds.

I don't think we'll have a civil war, ahead.

I think, however, that we are watching the republican party die.

How come, if Nixon didn't kill the republican party. And, Nelson Rockefeller croaked before he could reach the presidency ... Has the republican party's core turned to the "moderate wing" to flame this current fire?

Both Bush's were AWFUL!

Now, you're approaching 2012 ... with the thought that Americans are not going to choose Obama? He's the lesser of two evils.

What did the GOP do wrong?

They got on the train that wants to wipe out sexual choices.

The GOP needs to be known as the party against gay rights, etc. Without seeing what a failed war looks like?

"She wasn't running against Obama. McCain was. Did she have more experience than Biden was the more relevant comparison."

I think that the relevant comparisons are... she had more experience than Obama, and is *smarter* than Biden.

;-)

McCain, of course had far far more experience than Obama, and is smarter than Biden.

Biden did have lots of experience, which was supposed to comfort us about Obama's lack of experience... presumably he'd actually have a role in the Obama administration where that experience was utilized... except that he doesn't seem to have any role at all.

Makes Palin's question about what role the Vice President would have seem slightly less ignorant, doesn't it.

Palin's a quitter. And you are a liar. You are lying to yourself and you are lying to us.

It's because she is not a quitter that has you so worked up insisting over and over and over that she's a quitter.

The left did their best to prevent her from functioning as governor and they succeeded brilliantly in driving her from office so that she could protect herself from them. This situation is discussed repeatedly. It is known by everyone here. It is known completely by everyone here by 100%. It can be said that it is a thing that is 100% known. And yet, still, we will have: that should have been the end of it. She quit. Done.

Done goddamnit. Done.

It's that she's not done that pisses you off so much. It keeps you returning. It makes you ridiculous saying 'she quit' twice in one thread. We killed her. She quit. She's dead. She's irrelevant. She'll never hold office. She quit. She's dead. She quit. She's stupid. She quit. She needs a redo. She's a divider and her opponents are all oh so uniting. She quit.

But do you know what? I don't care. I don't care because it's Sunday and I'm over here with the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of Jesus goes,

Opposed the first pipeline, suppported the WAr Powers Act, was behind FISA and the VAWA law thathas reveresed by the Supreme Court,supported the nuclear freeze moments, opposed the Contras.opposed the first Gulf War. ledthe witchhunt against Bork, triedthe same against Clarence Thomas

This from a lockstep Sullivanist who showed up in every thread here to trash Palin in the weeks before the 2008 election.

Because, I mean, she was doing, like, soooo welll in the polls prior to that point. Yeah.

CL has this interesting idea that disparagement of a Republican candidate is, somehow, morally worse than all the regular disparagement that occurs here of Obama. It's certainly an interesting benchmark for how one judges the objective value of our political discourse.

Palin was seen by the public overall by election day as not up to the job.

The most damaging thing about Palin, pollsters agreed, was that she immediately took away McCain's most important argument - that 3 AM phone call, where Obama lacked the seasoning and experience and executive ability to be President. McCain was immediately forced to defend his selectee Palin as fit and ready to be President - and concede if she was - then Obama also was.

I don’t believe this was the case - which seems to go like this: Because McCain might die in office and the public did not think Palin was up to the job, McCain lost the election.

I’ll grant that Palin was perceived poorly by certain important segments of the voting demographic. But my take is that it was a false perception resulting largely from an unprecedented MSM blitzkrieg against Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin’s inexperience with the villainy of our MSM. Yes, she was naïve and whoever was handling her interview schedule was not too swift, either. In that sense she was unprepared for the campaign, which is not the same as ‘unfit for office.’ I certainly don’t believe that Palin alone cost McCain the election as is implied by the commentor.

Both Bush's were AWFUL!

Gee, I kind of liked them. Never regretted voting for them. But then I do have some conservative tendencies.

GrackleThe false meme- SSM has nothing to do with polygamy - has entereed the thread.

The eventual 1,017 page SC 5-4 majority decision is going to be boiled down to this- Failure to recognize SSM is based on Christianist bigotry, and shall not stand as a violation of the first amendment. Furthermore, a whopping handful of other nation's courts representing perhaps 3% of teh world's population have also legalized SSM, and following foreign court decisions, we also must.

10 minutes after that ruling, Abdullah, married already to the lovely Lotus Flower, files suit to take Chrysathenum as his legal second wife. His argumen- polygamy is banned soley due to Christianist bigotry, besides which polygamu is legally allowed in over 25 countries representing over 30% of the world's population.